Multiple scattering-assisted fluorescence amplification: towards biological applications

A. Reynaud; F. Brau; G.L. Lippi; J. Cazareth; M. Vassalli; S. Abelanet; S. Bonnefond

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 59 references

Multiple scattering-assisted fluorescence amplification: towards biological applications

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Adding TiO2 nanoparticles to a common dye amplifies its fluorescence up to 40-fold, with spectral narrowing and pulse shortening reported as evidence of stimulated emission below the lasing threshold.

desk verdict A careful biocompatibility-oriented random-laser study whose headline 40x gain is likely inflated by scattering-enhanced collection and line narrowing; the stimulated-emission claim needs integrated-intensity controls. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10199 v2 pith:QFJHOB7U submitted 2019-08-27 physics.bio-ph physics.optics

S. Bonnefond , J. Cazareth , S. Abelanet , A. Reynaud , M. Vassalli , F. Brau , G.L. Lippi This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.bio-phphysics.optics

keywords fluorescenceamplificationmultiplescatteringrandomlasertitaniumdioxidenanoparticlesFITCspectralnarrowingstimulatedemissionbiocompatibility

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that dispersing rutile TiO2 nanoparticles in an aqueous FITC solution at neutral pH produces fluorescence amplification through multiple scattering and stimulated emission, without reaching actual lasing. The authors report a relative gain of up to 40 at their highest nanoparticle concentration and pump energy, alongside a linewidth reduction from about 20 nm to about 5 nm and a fluorescence pulse shortening from about 8.5 ns to about 7 ns. These conditions deliberately move closer to biocompatibility than the organic solvents and cytotoxic dyes used in many random-laser experiments, making the approach a candidate for boosting weak fluorescence signals in biological samples.

What carries the argument

The central object is the scattering mean free path $l_N = 1/(\rho_N \sigma_N)$, tuned by the TiO2 nanoparticle concentration to fall between the sample thickness and the optical wavelength. This diffusive scattering regime extends the path of both pump and emitted light within the gain medium, providing the positive feedback that converts part of the spontaneous fluorescence into stimulated emission, resulting in higher spectral peak intensity, narrower linewidth, and shorter pulse duration.

What would settle it

Measure the wavelength-integrated fluorescence energy (not the spectral peak) with and without nanoparticles under identical collection geometry. If the integrated signal increases much less than the peak, the apparent gain is largely spectral narrowing and redistribution rather than amplification. Separately, deconvolve the photomultiplier impulse response from the recorded fluorescence pulses; if the corrected pulse duration no longer decreases with nanoparticle concentration, the pulse-shortening evidence for stimulated emission is absent.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that adding TiO2 nanoparticles to FITC at neutral pH creates stimulated fluorescence amplification: the spectral peak intensity grows monotonically with nanoparticle concentration and pump energy, the emission line narrows substantially, and the fluorescence pulse shortens. The paper defines the gain in Eq. (7) as the ratio of spectral peak intensities with and without nanoparticles and reports G≈40 at CN=6.25 mg/ml and EP≈3 mJ. The mechanism is attributed to multiple scattering lengthening the optical path through the 2 mm sample (scattering mean free path 61–245 µm, satisfying L >> lN >> λ), which recycles pump and fluorescence photons and allows a fraction of stimulated emission to develop below the random-lasing threshold.

Load-bearing premise

The gain defined in Eq. (7), the ratio of spectral peak intensities, measures true fluorescence amplification rather than an artifact of enhanced backscattered collection or spectral narrowing; if most of the peak increase comes from light being concentrated into a narrower line or redirected into the detector, the 40-fold gain claim and the stimulated-emission interpretation collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the gain is real, weak fluorescence signals from rare cells or poorly expressed markers could be boosted tenfold or more without resorting to cytotoxic laser dyes.
The ~5 nm linewidth (compared to ~20 nm for unassisted FITC) could allow denser multiplexing of fluorophores in cytometry and imaging by reducing spectral overlap.
Because most of the gain is available at pump energies below 1 mJ, the approach could be operated at low phototoxicity, potentially compatible with live-cell work.
The shorter fluorescence pulses, if confirmed, could improve time-resolved sensing of fast biochemical events.
The same scattering-amplification strategy might transfer to other biocompatible fluorophores and to cells expressing fluorescent proteins, as the paper suggests for GFP.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The reported gain of 40 is defined on spectral peak intensity, not total emitted power; a substantial part of the apparent gain may come from spectral narrowing plus enhanced backscattered collection, so the true photon-number amplification could be smaller than 40.
If the mechanism works in cell suspensions, the cell's own refractive index could act as an additional scatterer, suggesting a label-free route to phenotype sensing in flow - this is an editor's extension, not stated in the paper.
A direct test would use angle-resolved detection to separate true stimulated emission from scattering-assisted collection; the paper's backscattering geometry (NA≈0.17) cannot fully distinguish these.
The pulse-shortening evidence (1.5 ns decrease) is based on measurements at only three pump energies and without detector-response deconvolution, so a careful time-resolved study with a faster detector would either strengthen or weaken the stimulated-emission interpretation.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a serious proof-of-principle with a real, addressable flaw in the headline metric. The authors add TiO2 nanoparticles to aqueous FITC at neutral pH and report up to 40x fluorescence 'gain' with line narrowing and pulse shortening, which they attribute to stimulated emission below the random-lasing threshold. That interpretation is plausible, but the gain number is not tied to total fluorescence yield.

What's genuinely new: the combination of an FDA-approved dye (FITC) with TiO2 NPs in physiological buffer, supported by careful NP characterization (zeta potential, DLS), explicit photobleaching protocol, and a clear statement that full biocompatibility is not yet reached. That is useful groundwork for anyone trying to move random-laser amplification into cell biology.

The main soft spot is Eq. (7). Gain is defined as the ratio of spectral peak intensities with and without NPs, collected through the same NA=0.17 lens. In the transparent sample you only collect a small cone; with NPs, scattering redirects many more photons into that cone. On top of that, linewidth narrows from ~20 nm to ~5 nm, which alone inflates the peak by roughly 4x even at constant integrated intensity. The authors never report integrated fluorescence, so we can't separate real amplification from collection and narrowing effects. That's not a subtle point; it's the core of the claim.

The pulse-duration evidence is also thin: three pump energies, a 1.5 ns change, no deconvolution of detector response. It's consistent with stimulated emission but not conclusive. The superlinear growth in the no-NP control is mentioned but not explained, which complicates the baseline.

None of this is fatal. The physics may be right, and the authors are appropriately cautious about biocompatibility. But as written, the 'gain up to 40' should be read as 'peak-intensity enhancement in a fixed collection geometry,' not fluorescence amplification. A revision with integrated-intensity measurements, a scattering-only control, and more pulse data would substantially strengthen it.

This paper deserves peer review: the question matters, the methods are mostly sound, and the weaknesses are fixable. I'd send it to a referee and ask for those controls. I wouldn't cite the gain number in my own work until that's done.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an experimental study in which TiO2 nanoparticles are added to an aqueous FITC solution at neutral pH, and claims that this produces stimulated fluorescence amplification below the random-lasing threshold. The central evidence is a monotonic increase in the spectral peak fluorescence intensity with nanoparticle concentration, a reduction in the fluorescence spectral width from about 20 nm to about 5 nm, and a decrease in the fluorescence pulse duration from about 8.5 ns to about 7.0 ns. The paper defines a 'gain' quantity as the ratio of spectral peak intensities with and without nanoparticles (Eq. 7) and reports gain factors up to about 40 at EP ≈ 3 mJ and CN = 6.25 mg/ml. The authors also characterize suspension stability through ζ-potential and DLS measurements, calibrate the pump-energy line, and adopt a 10-pulse acquisition protocol to avoid photobleaching. The conclusion frames the result as a step toward biocompatible fluorescence amplification and discusses possible biological applications.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the work would be a useful experimental contribution: it would demonstrate sub-threshold, scattering-assisted fluorescence amplification in a biocompatible aqueous environment with a common biological fluorophore, and the accompanying line narrowing could have practical value for multiplexed fluorescence detection. The paper has concrete strengths: careful attention to nanoparticle suspension stability, quantitative filter calibration, a defined acquisition protocol that minimizes photobleaching, and error-weighted averaging over six independent samples. The weakness is that the main reported quantity, the gain defined in Eq. (7), does not currently separate true fluorescence amplification from two alternative mechanisms: spectral narrowing increasing the peak height at constant integrated intensity, and enhanced backscattering collection in the diffusive sample. The pulse-duration evidence, based on three pump energies and no detector deconvolution, is too thin to independently support the stimulated-emission interpretation.

major comments (3)

[VII D, Eq. (7)] The gain G is defined as the ratio of collected spectral peak intensities, not as a ratio of total emitted fluorescence. Since the FWHM shrinks from about 20 nm to about 5 nm at fixed CN (Section VII B), the peak height can increase by roughly a factor of four even if the integrated fluorescence is unchanged. In addition, the single-lens backscattering geometry (NA = 0.17, Section IV A) collects a much larger fraction of the emitted light in the diffusive NP-loaded sample than in the transparent FITC reference, so scattering-enhanced collection can masquerade as true amplification. The factor-40 headline therefore needs to be backed by spectrally integrated fluorescence measurements and a control for collection efficiency (e.g., total-fluorescence or angle-resolved detection), or by correcting Eq. (7) for linewidth and collection-solid-angle changes.
[VII C] The pulse-duration evidence is too thin to support the stimulated-emission interpretation. It rests on only three pump energies (EP = 300, 1200, and 3000 μJ), a small shortening from about 8.5 ns to about 7.0 ns, and widths extracted from the autocorrelation zero-crossing without deconvolving the PMT response (rise time 0.57 ns, Section IV A). The text itself notes that the detector contribution is 'not-entirely-negligible.' The claimed threshold phenomenon between EP = 300 μJ and EP = 1.2 mJ is based on two points only. Please provide deconvolved emission decays, more pump-energy points across the claimed threshold, and statistics or error bars; a control with a non-fluorescent scattering suspension would help rule out pulse-shape changes from scattered pump light.
[VII A] The statement in Section VII A that the superlinear growth of fluorescence intensity with pump energy in the absence of TiO2 NPs is 'consistent with amplification by stimulated emission' (inset of Fig. 4(b)) is surprising because a transparent single-pass dye solution has no feedback mechanism that would normally produce stimulated emission at these intensities. This assertion needs quantitative support or should be removed; otherwise it weakens the paper's internal logic by interpreting an unexplained nonlinearity in the detector or dye response as evidence for the central mechanism.

minor comments (6)

[IV A] In Section IV A, the dichroic mirror cutoff is given as 'λcutoff = 500µm' but should presumably be 500 nm; also 'dicroic' should be 'dichroic'.
[VII C] In Section VII C, the text refers to 'EN' when describing pump energies; this should be 'EP' to match the notation used elsewhere.
[General] There are several typographical errors, including 'acqueous', 'homogeneus', and 'reproductibility'; a careful proofreading pass is needed.
[Figures 4-6] The data-processing section describes weighted averages and standard deviations over six samples, but the figures do not show error bars; please add error bars or state explicitly that they are smaller than the symbol size.
[IV D] The photobleaching sequence described in Section IV D is reported as 'data not shown'; consider providing a representative photobleaching curve in the supplementary material so the choice of the 10-pulse window can be assessed.
[References] Reference [48] is incomplete and does not provide a proper publication title or page range; please supply full bibliographic details.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported gain is a measured ratio and the supporting observables are independent, so the central claim does not reduce to its own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central quantity, the gain G defined in Eq. (7), is an operational ratio of measured spectral peak intensities with and without TiO2 nanoparticles under the same illumination conditions. It is not the output of a fitted model, nor is it defined in terms of the stimulated-emission conclusion it is used to support. The three supporting signatures — intensity enhancement, linewidth narrowing, and fluorescence pulse shortening — are separately measured observables (Figs. 4-6) with no equation relating them to G by construction. The pulse-duration analysis explicitly acknowledges that the measured width is a convolution including detector response and emission from many independent molecules, and the collection geometry (NA = 0.17) is disclosed, so the interpretation of the data is a scientific question rather than a definitional or self-referential one. The cited literature on random lasing and scattering is external and does not carry the argument through author self-citations; no uniqueness theorem or prior same-author result is invoked to force the conclusion. The paper even states that the technique is not yet fully biocompatible, showing that the conclusions are not overstated in a way that would hide circularity. Any weakness of the stimulated-emission interpretation is a matter of confounding mechanisms and measurement limitations, not of the claim being equivalent to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claim rests on standard random-laser diffusion theory, on the stability of the NP suspension, and on the interpretive identification of linewidth narrowing and pulse shortening as signatures of stimulated emission. No new physical entities are introduced. Several experimental settings (dye concentration, NP concentrations, pump energies) are chosen by hand or by single-parameter scans rather than fitted to a model.

free parameters (3)

FITC concentration CF = 200 µM
Selected as the concentration giving maximum fluorescence intensity in a spectrofluorimeter scan (Fig. 1a); the central gain measurements use this value.
TiO2 NP concentrations CN = 1.56, 3.12, 6.25 mg/ml
Chosen to place the scattering mean free path lN = 245, 123, 61 µm in the diffusive regime L >> lN >> lambda (Section III A 2); these are hand-picked settings, not fitted.
Pump pulse energies Ep = 0.15 to 3.00 mJ (nominal)
Six nominal energies chosen for the energy-dependence curves (Section VI); not fitted, but the reported gain values depend on this range.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Multiple scattering lengthens the effective optical path of both pump and fluorescence photons, and this is the mechanism for amplification (Section II B).
The paper assumes the increase in path length due to TiO2 scattering promotes stimulated rather than merely increased spontaneous emission.
domain assumption The scattering mean free path is given by lN = 1/(rho_N sigma_N) and the chosen concentrations satisfy the diffusive regime (Section III A 2).
Standard diffusion theory for random lasers, used to justify the NP concentrations.
domain assumption DLS and zeta potential measurements correctly report suspension stability at pH 7 (Section III B).
The stability of the suspension is inferred from zeta potential below -30 mV and hydrodynamic radius ~60 nm; this underpins reproducibility.
ad hoc to paper Fluorescence pulse shortening and spectral narrowing are unambiguous signatures of stimulated emission in this system (Sections VII B, VII C).
The central interpretation; alternative photophysical effects (saturation, scattering collection, reabsorption) are not quantitatively excluded.
domain assumption The detector response and pump pulse shape do not dominate the measured pulse duration changes (Section VII C).
Pulse widths are extracted from autocorrelation zero-crossing, but no deconvolution of the 0.57 ns rise-time PMT or 5 ns pump is shown; the 1.5 ns change is small relative to these.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multiple scattering-assisted fluorescence amplification: towards biological applications." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QFJHOB7U

@misc{pith2026190810199,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multiple scattering-assisted fluorescence amplification: towards biological applications},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QFJHOB7U}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10199}
}

read the original abstract

Stimulated amplification of fluorescence signals is obtained under conditions which approach biocompatibility by adding NanoParticles (NPs) to an aqueous solution of fluorescein. The conditions for the stability of the suspension and optimum dye concentration are detailed, together with considerations on photobleaching and phototoxicity. A dedicated experimental setup, coupled to a specified measurement protocol, prove that it is possible to obtain gain factors up to 40, with a considerable reduction in spectral fluorescence linewidth. A pump-energy- and NP-concentration dependence of the fluorescence pulse duration is interpreted as further proof of stimulated amplification. Perspectives and possible biological applications are discussed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.10199 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. (a) Experimental setup. The pump laser is com [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Calibration plot of the energy arriving at the sample [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Fluorescence emission spectra at pump energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Normalized fluorescence spectra at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. a) Fluorescence pulse duration [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

[1]

Figure 1(a) shows the maxi- mal intensity of emission at wavelength λF≈ 520 nm as a function of CF proving that the strongest ﬂuorescence intensity is obtained at CF = 200 µM

Fluorescein In order to determine the optimal CF (to reach the highest optical gain) while keeping a low biotoxicity and small self-quenching [5], ﬂuorescence emission spectra of increasing CF in H 2O mQ were recorded (spectroﬂuo- rimeter FP-8300 JASCO). Figure 1(a) shows the maxi- mal intensity of emission at wavelength λF≈ 520 nm as a function of CF pro...

work page
[2]

TiO 2 CN was chosen to match the diﬀusive regime of light scattering: L >> lN >> λ[27] where L represents the sample thickness (2 mm, Section IV C),λ the wavelength (≈ 500 nm) and lN the scattering mean free path. The latter can be expressed as a function of particle density ρN and scattering cross sectionσN,lN = 1/(ρN·σN) [17, 27], and takes the numerica...

work page
[3]

For each energy and sample, we acquire and record 10 successive ﬂuorescence spectra obtained from 10 pump pulses (1s total acquisition time)

work page
[4]

ζ-potential Physico-chemical NP equilibrium is ensured by the mu- tual repulsion [34, 35], quantiﬁed by the isoelectric poten- tial [36, 37] which, naturally, depends on the solution’s pH. The sample’s isoelectric point results from the man- ufacturing process and therefore varies from one man- ufacturer to the next, with consequently diﬀerent sur- face a...

work page
[5]

For each measured quantity, we compute weighted average ¯Y and standard deviation σY over the 6 repetitions (samples) [48]: ¯Y = 1 M ∑M n=1 ¯Xn/σ2 Xn ∑M n=1 1/σ2 Xn σ2 Y = 1 M− 1 1∑M n=1 1/σ2 Xn , (6) where ¯Xn represents any of the measured averages, σXn its standard deviation and M the number of repetitions (M = 6 throughout the experiment). VII. RESULT...

work page 2013
[6]

Dynamic light scattering A quantitative measurement of clustering in the sus- pension is obtained by measuring, through DLS, the NPs’ hydrodynamic radius,Rh, which reﬂects the size not only of the particle core, but also of any surface structure, as well as of the type and concentration of any ions present in the medium. Figure 1(c) shows the normalized a...

work page 2000
[7]

For all combinations of ( CF,CN) we mea- sure all quantities of interest for six diﬀerent (nominal) values of the pulse energy Ep = (0.15, 0.30, 0.60, 1.20, 2.00, 3.00) mJ (actual values reported in the graphs are adjusted on the basis of the reference measured by P1)

work page
[8]

For each energy and preparation ( CF,CN), we re- peat the measurements on 6 independent samples

work page

Show all 59 references

[9]

M. C. Gather and S. H. Yun, Nature Photonics 5, 406 (2011)

2011
[10]

For each energy and sample, we compute average ¯X and standard deviation σX of the measured quan- tities Xi (ﬂuorescence ampliﬁcation, gain, ﬂuores- cence decay time and Full Width at Half-Maximum (FWHM) of the measured spectra) for 10 measure- ments
[11]

Schubert, A

M. Schubert, A. Steude, P. Liehm, N. M. Kronenberg, M. Karl, E. C. Campbell, S. J. Powis, and M. C. Gather, Nano Letters 15, 5647 (2015)

2015
[12]

B.-W. Ying, D. Fourmy, and S. Yoshizawa, RNA 13, 2042 (2007)

2007
[13]

Michalet, F

X. Michalet, F. Pinaud, L. Bentolila, J. Tsay, S. Doose, J. Li, G. Sundaresan, A. Wu, S. Gambhir, and S. Weiss, Science 307, 538 (2005)

2005
[14]

Zheng and L

Q. Zheng and L. D. Lavis, Current Opinion in Chemical Biology 39, 32 (2017)

2017
[15]

T. J. Lambert and J. C. Waters, in Methods in cell biol- ogy, Vol. 123 (Elsevier, 2014) Chap. 3, pp. 35–53

2014
[16]

Valeur, in Digital Encyclopedia of Applied Physics (Wiley Online Library, 2009) pp

B. Valeur, in Digital Encyclopedia of Applied Physics (Wiley Online Library, 2009) pp. 477–531

2009
[17]

F. Wang, J. Flanagan, N. Su, L.-C. Wang, S. Bui, A. Niel- son, X. Wu, H.-T. Vo, X.-J. Ma, and Y. Luo, The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics 14, 22 (2012)

2012
[18]

Fan and S.-H

X. Fan and S.-H. Yun, Nature Methods 11, 141 (2014)

2014
[19]

Y. Chen, L. Lei, K. Zhang, J. Shi, L. Wang, H. Li, X. Zhang, Y. Wang, and H. L. Chan, Biomicroﬂuidics 4, 043002 (2010)

2010
[20]

R. G. El-Dardiry and A. Lagendijk, Applied Physics Let- ters 98, 161106 (2011)

2011
[21]

M. C. Gather and S. H. Yun, Optics Letters 36, 3299 (2011)

2011
[22]

R. C. Polson and Z. V. Vardeny, Applied Physics Letters 85, 1289 (2004)

2004
[23]

D. S. Wiersma, Nature Physics 4, 359 (2008)

2008
[24]

F. Luan, B. Gu, A. S. Gomes, K.-T. Yong, S. Wen, and P. N. Prasad, Nano Today 10, 168 (2015)

2015
[25]

Letokhov, Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theo- retical Physics 26, 835 (1968)

V. Letokhov, Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theo- retical Physics 26, 835 (1968)

1968
[26]

Ambartsumyan, N

R. Ambartsumyan, N. Basov, P. Kryukov, and V. Letokhov, IEEE J. Quantum Electron 2, 442 (1966)

1966
[27]

Alford, H

R. Alford, H. M. Simpson, J. Duberman, G. C. Hill, M. Ogawa, C. Regino, H. Kobayashi, and P. L. Choyke, Molecular Imaging 8, 7290 (2009)

2009
[28]

J. Yi, G. Feng, L. Yang, K. Yao, C. Yang, Y. Song, and S. Zhou, Optics Communications 285, 5276 (2012)

2012
[29]

Q. Song, S. Xiao, Z. Xu, J. Liu, X. Sun, V. Drachev, V. M. Shalaev, O. Akkus, and Y. L. Kim, Optics Letters 35, 1425 (2010)

2010
[30]

Magde, R

D. Magde, R. Wong, and P. G. Seybold, Photochemistry and Photobiology 75, 327 (2002)

2002
[31]

Titanium Oxide (Rutile, 40 wt%, 30- 50 nm) in water,

NanoAmor, “Titanium Oxide (Rutile, 40 wt%, 30- 50 nm) in water,” https://www.nanoamor.com/inc/ sdetail/14252, accessed: 2019-07-23

2019
[32]

Leonetti, C

M. Leonetti, C. Conti, and C. L´ opez, Physical Review A 85, 043841 (2012)

2012
[33]

Z. E. Allouni, M. R. Cimpan, P. J. Høl, T. Skodvin, and N. R. Gjerdet, Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces 68, 83 (2009)

2009
[34]

B. J. Quah and C. R. Parish, Journal of Immunological Methods 379, 1 (2012)

2012
[35]

J. R. DeVore, JOSA 41, 416 (1951)

1951
[36]

Bodurov, I

I. Bodurov, I. Vlaeva, A. Viraneva, T. Yovcheva, and S. Sainov, Nanosci. Nanotechnol. 16, 31 (2016)

2016
[37]

W. M. Haynes, CRC handbook of chemistry and physics (CRC, 2014)

2014
[38]

This result thus conﬁrms the stability of the sample at neutral pH

and shows that for pH ≥ 4 the suspension is stable. This result thus conﬁrms the stability of the sample at neutral pH. Figure 1(d) shows the mean hydrodynamic radius, Rh, measured through Dynamic Light Scatter- ing (DLS) [39–41] (DynaPro Protein instrument, Wyatt Technology)....
[39]

Y. A. Nastishin and T. Dudok, Ukrainian Journal of Physical Optics 14, 146 (2013)

2013
[40]

Shuzhen, Z

F. Shuzhen, Z. Xingyu, W. Qingpu, Z. Chen, W. Zheng- ping, and L. Ruijun, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics 42, 015105 (2008)

2008
[41]

H. C. Winkler, T. Notter, U. Meyer, and H. Naegeli, Journal of Nanobiotechnology 16, 51 (2018)

2018
[42]

Fluorescein sodium salt,

Sigma-Aldrich, “Fluorescein sodium salt,” https:// www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/sial/f6377, accessed: 2019-07-23

2019
[43]

G. Dice, S. Mujumdar, and A. Elezzabi, Applied Physics Letters 86, 131105 (2005)

2005
[44]

Brown, Dynamic light scattering: the method and some applications, Vol

W. Brown, Dynamic light scattering: the method and some applications, Vol. 313 (Clarendon Oxford, 1993)

1993
[45]

E. M. Hotze, T. Phenrat, and G. V. Lowry, Journal of Environmental Quality 39, 1909 (2010)

2010
[46]

Christian, F

P. Christian, F. Von der Kammer, M. Baalousha, and T. Hofmann, Ecotoxicology 17, 326 (2008). 10

2008
[47]

Kosmulski, Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 337, 439 (2009)

M. Kosmulski, Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 337, 439 (2009)

2009
[48]

Kosmulski, Advances in Colloid and Interface Science 251, 115 (2018)

M. Kosmulski, Advances in Colloid and Interface Science 251, 115 (2018)

2018
[49]

Huber and S

R. Huber and S. Stoll, Colloids and Surfaces A: Physic- ochemical and Engineering Aspects 553, 425 (2018)

2018
[50]

nm (manufacturer’s speciﬁcation [31]) when they are delivered in their liquid suspension (H 2O, CAS#7732- 18-5). However, electrostatic forces generally intervene when transferring the sample to an ionic solution and, as the scattering characteristics sensitively depend on sca...
[51]

B. J. Berne and R. Pecora, Dynamic light scattering: with applications to chemistry, biology, and physics (Courier Corporation, 2000)

2000
[52]

Xu, Particle characterization: light scattering meth- ods, Vol

R. Xu, Particle characterization: light scattering meth- ods, Vol. 13 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2001)

2001
[53]

Particle size analysis – dynamic light scattering (DLS), International Organiza- tion for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland,

ISO 22412:2008, “Particle size analysis – dynamic light scattering (DLS), International Organiza- tion for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland,” http://www.iso.org/cms/render/live/en/sites/ isoorg/contents/data/standard/04/09/40942.html (2008)

2008
[54]

Finsy, Advances in Colloid and Interface Science 52, 79 (1994)

R. Finsy, Advances in Colloid and Interface Science 52, 79 (1994)

1994
[55]

D. E. Koppel, The Journal of Chemical Physics 57, 4814 (1972)

1972
[56]

Korson, W

L. Korson, W. Drost-Hansen, and F. J. Millero, The Journal of Physical Chemistry 73, 34 (1969)

1969
[57]

Braun and A

D. Braun and A. Libchaber, Physical Review Letters 89, 188103 (2002)

2002
[58]

L. Song, E. Hennink, I. T. Young, and H. J. Tanke, Biophysical Journal 68, 2588 (1995)

1995
[59]

Taylor, Published by University Science Books, 648 Broadway, Suite 902, New York, NY 10012, 1997

J. Taylor, Published by University Science Books, 648 Broadway, Suite 902, New York, NY 10012, 1997. (Uni- versity Science Books, 1997)

1997

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Figure 1(a) shows the maxi- mal intensity of emission at wavelength λF≈ 520 nm as a function of CF proving that the strongest ﬂuorescence intensity is obtained at CF = 200 µM

Fluorescein In order to determine the optimal CF (to reach the highest optical gain) while keeping a low biotoxicity and small self-quenching [5], ﬂuorescence emission spectra of increasing CF in H 2O mQ were recorded (spectroﬂuo- rimeter FP-8300 JASCO). Figure 1(a) shows the maxi- mal intensity of emission at wavelength λF≈ 520 nm as a function of CF pro...

work page

[2] [2]

TiO 2 CN was chosen to match the diﬀusive regime of light scattering: L >> lN >> λ[27] where L represents the sample thickness (2 mm, Section IV C),λ the wavelength (≈ 500 nm) and lN the scattering mean free path. The latter can be expressed as a function of particle density ρN and scattering cross sectionσN,lN = 1/(ρN·σN) [17, 27], and takes the numerica...

work page

[3] [3]

For each energy and sample, we acquire and record 10 successive ﬂuorescence spectra obtained from 10 pump pulses (1s total acquisition time)

work page

[4] [4]

ζ-potential Physico-chemical NP equilibrium is ensured by the mu- tual repulsion [34, 35], quantiﬁed by the isoelectric poten- tial [36, 37] which, naturally, depends on the solution’s pH. The sample’s isoelectric point results from the man- ufacturing process and therefore varies from one man- ufacturer to the next, with consequently diﬀerent sur- face a...

work page

[5] [5]

For each measured quantity, we compute weighted average ¯Y and standard deviation σY over the 6 repetitions (samples) [48]: ¯Y = 1 M ∑M n=1 ¯Xn/σ2 Xn ∑M n=1 1/σ2 Xn σ2 Y = 1 M− 1 1∑M n=1 1/σ2 Xn , (6) where ¯Xn represents any of the measured averages, σXn its standard deviation and M the number of repetitions (M = 6 throughout the experiment). VII. RESULT...

work page 2013

[6] [6]

Dynamic light scattering A quantitative measurement of clustering in the sus- pension is obtained by measuring, through DLS, the NPs’ hydrodynamic radius,Rh, which reﬂects the size not only of the particle core, but also of any surface structure, as well as of the type and concentration of any ions present in the medium. Figure 1(c) shows the normalized a...

work page 2000

[7] [7]

For all combinations of ( CF,CN) we mea- sure all quantities of interest for six diﬀerent (nominal) values of the pulse energy Ep = (0.15, 0.30, 0.60, 1.20, 2.00, 3.00) mJ (actual values reported in the graphs are adjusted on the basis of the reference measured by P1)

work page

[8] [8]

For each energy and preparation ( CF,CN), we re- peat the measurements on 6 independent samples

work page